Maine v. Casey

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Maine v. Casey

45 Me. 435

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedJuly 1, 1858

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 45 Me. 435 (Maine v. Casey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maine v. Casey, 45 Me. 435 (Me. 1858).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was drawn up by

Davis, J.

This is an indictment against the defendant upon the statute of 1856, c. 255, § 15, “no person shall keep a drinking-house or tippling-shop within this State.”

The only charge in the indictment is, that the defendant did, at the time and place named therein, “ keep a drinking-house and tippling-shop, contrary to the form of the statute.”

There is another section of the same statute, defining the offence, and providing that it shall consist of certain specified acts; and it is contended that this description should have been set out in the indictment. That this is in accordance with the usual practice, cannot be denied; and if the prohibition and the definition were both in the same section, we should have no doubt thp,t the offence ought to be charged in the language of the description in the statute. For it is well settled that the indictment must, by express words, bring the offence within the substantial description made in the statute; and those circumstances mentioned in the statute to make up the offence, shall not be supplied by the general conclusion “contra formam statuti." 2 Hale, P. C., 170; Rex v. Cox, 1 Leach, 83; Rex v. Taylor, Shower, 190.

But where the offence is prohibited in general terms in one section of the statute, and a penalty prescribed, and in another section, entirely distinct, there is a particular description of the elements which shall constitute the offence, we perceive no reason, upon principle or authority, why the indictment should contain any thing more than the general description. That [437]*437gives the defendant sufficient notice of the charge he is to meet, as effectually as if the whole description should be incorporated into the indictment. The indictment in this case sets out the time, and the place, and the offence, with sufficient certainty. Commonwealth v. Ashley, 2 Gray, 356.

Exceptions overruled.

Tenney, C. J., Rice, Cutting, May, and Goodenow, J. J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the Court was drawn up by

Davis, J.

This is an indictment against the defendant upon the statute of 1856, c. 255, § 15, “no person shall keep a drinking-house or tippling-shop within this State.”

The only charge in the indictment is, that the defendant did, at the time and place named therein, “ keep a drinking-house and tippling-shop, contrary to the form of the statute.”

There is another section of the same statute, defining the offence, and providing that it shall consist of certain specified acts; and it is contended that this description should have been set out in the indictment. That this is in accordance with the usual practice, cannot be denied; and if the prohibition and the definition were both in the same section, we should have no doubt thp,t the offence ought to be charged in the language of the description in the statute. For it is well settled that the indictment must, by express words, bring the offence within the substantial description made in the statute; and those circumstances mentioned in the statute to make up the offence, shall not be supplied by the general conclusion “contra formam statuti." 2 Hale, P. C., 170; Rex v. Cox, 1 Leach, 83; Rex v. Taylor, Shower, 190.

But where the offence is prohibited in general terms in one section of the statute, and a penalty prescribed, and in another section, entirely distinct, there is a particular description of the elements which shall constitute the offence, we perceive no reason, upon principle or authority, why the indictment should contain any thing more than the general description. That [437]*437gives the defendant sufficient notice of the charge he is to meet, as effectually as if the whole description should be incorporated into the indictment. The indictment in this case sets out the time, and the place, and the offence, with sufficient certainty. Commonwealth v. Ashley, 2 Gray, 356.

Exceptions overruled.

Tenney, C. J., Rice, Cutting, May, and Goodenow, J. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 Me. 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maine-v-casey-me-1858.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack